I live in Cannock. The only reason why it might be potentially interesting is that the Labour candidate, who should by all the laws of politics be on course for an easy win, appears to be heading off on an orgy of self-destruction that even Gordon Brown would have blenched at.
I'll explain. Cannock and Rugeley are a mix of poverty and lower-middle-class white/blue collar workers, with some pockets of wealth on the Chase itself. Most people work for private companies, eg CAT, Amazon, and have not done too well in the slump. This was one reason why it went blue last time. Things have not improved markedly and, disillusioned, this vote has swung directly back to Labour (not to UKIP, as some posters here think, although that has siphoned off a little of the Old Tory vote and may see them come a fairly distant third).
However, the second, big reason why Cannock rejected Labour is because it used to be part of the old Mid-Staffordshire NHS trust - indeed, Chase Hospital in Cannock was one of those affected by the scandal (second behind Stafford itself, if memory serves). Since then, MSNHST has been abolished, divided between Wolverhampton and Stoke. This has been received like a heap of sick in Stafford itself, where the hospital has been massively downgraded so they have to go to Stoke for services. However, so far as I can judge people in Cannock are not too unhappy apart from some reflexive reactionaries. Wolverhampton is about the same distance away as Stafford was, and is a much better hospital.
So I am astonished that the Labour candidate has decided to campaign on the NHS. I received a leaflet (one of two I have had from him) which assures me 'only Labour can be trusted with the NHS' and all the usual cattle excrement about millions of extra nurses and how Tories intend to make the NHS an organisation for eating babies. This in a place where a large number of people actually died needlessly because of Labour's mishandling of the NHS. It was, moreover, a generic national leaflet (although locally delivered) and therefore came across as crass, arrogant and completely insensitive to local concerns. It was kind of the equivalent of the BNP campaigning on its record of promoting racial harmony.
If Janos Toth comes to his senses and campaigns on jobs, benefits and the economy, he will win with no trouble. If he plugs the NHS, which is all he seems to be doing at the moment, he will almost certainly lose what I thought less than three weeks ago was an unloseable election.
If we had Spain's unemployment, and especially youth unemployment I suspect the kippers would be doing rather better...
That's not down to luck...
No its down to Gordon Brown not letting Bliar take us into the Euro.
I suspect if the tories had won in 1997 the idiots Major and Heseltine, egged on by a new generation like Call Me Dave would have taken us in and ruined us as thoroughly as Greece.
If we had Spain's unemployment, and especially youth unemployment I suspect the kippers would be doing rather better...
That's not down to luck...
No its down to Gordon Brown not letting Bliar take us into the Euro.
I suspect if the tories had won in 1997 the idiots Major and Heseltine, egged on by a new generation like Call Me Dave would have taken us in and ruined us as thoroughly as Greece.
Yes nothing enacted since 2010 has had any effect....
I had a fairly decent bet on a 2015 election with vcbet at 11/4 shortly after Cameron announced the fixed term parliament. They haven't paid out yet but it's now a certain winner.
I will chase them up tomorrow.
:-)
There might yet be a state of emergency. There was no election in either 1915 or 1940, despite elections being due on each occasion.
Also the generals could take over.
That might be a surprisingly popular option.....although I suspect even our generals are rather too leftist pinko to get the support of most of those who would like the generals to take over.
If we had Spain's unemployment, and especially youth unemployment I suspect the kippers would be doing rather better...
That's not down to luck...
No its down to Gordon Brown not letting Bliar take us into the Euro.
I suspect if the tories had won in 1997 the idiots Major and Heseltine, egged on by a new generation like Call Me Dave would have taken us in and ruined us as thoroughly as Greece.
Yes nothing enacted since 2010 has had any effect....
Indeed, National Debt doubled and still rising at 90 billion a year. Inevitable collapse nailed on sometime over the next 5 years whoever wins when there is no more road to kick the can along.
On topic, the constitutional position is simple and Huhne is wrong. If the government cannot pass a budget (in parliamentary parlance, if 'the supplies are refused') there is an automatic election as otherwise the government cannot function. That's been the set-up since 1688 and I don't think the FTP Act changed it (and what it didn't change will of course stand). It was last invoked in 1909-10 with the Lords voting down the People's Budget (as LG and Squiffy called it). This is of course why, by convention, the Lords pass budgets on the nod, or else forcing elections on the opposition would be too easy.
I could be wrong (and if I am doubtless somebody will point me to the relevant clause) but in any case it's hard to see how under such circumstances there could not be an election. (Incidentally, surely the Mutiny Act was replaced by the Defence of the Realm and Emergency Powers Acts in the years 1915-21? I don't think that's one that still needs passing annually.)
This does of course leave a government a loophole if it wants/needs an early election of voting down its own budget. Why it would want to I have no idea, and I can't imagine a worse way of starting an election campaign. But if there were a properly hung parliament and no Grand Coalition, it's easy to see George Osborne bringing forward a budget to trigger an election.
If we had Spain's unemployment, and especially youth unemployment I suspect the kippers would be doing rather better...
Actually the PP policies have done much to lift the country from recession and unemployment is now falling - however, it does show just how well the UK government has done by comparison. It's extraordinary to me how little the British appreciate this - it could all be so much worse if only people knew. In Spain the pain of adjustment has been much greater because of the euro strait-jacket.
Thanks, most interesting. The Tories have of course selected a new candidate in the shape of Amanda Milling to replace the controversial Aidan Burley who's retiring at the age of 35.
I live in Cannock. The only reason why it might be potentially interesting is that the Labour candidate, who should by all the laws of politics be on course for an easy win, appears to be heading off on an orgy of self-destruction that even Gordon Brown would have blenched at.
I'll explain. Cannock and Rugeley are a mix of poverty and lower-middle-class white/blue collar workers, with some pockets of wealth on the Chase itself. Most people work for private companies, eg CAT, Amazon, and have not done too well in the slump. This was one reason why it went blue last time. Things have not improved markedly and, disillusioned, this vote has swung directly back to Labour (not to UKIP, as some posters here think, although that has siphoned off a little of the Old Tory vote and may see them come a fairly distant third).
However, the second, big reason why Cannock rejected Labour is because it used to be part of the old Mid-Staffordshire NHS trust - indeed, Chase Hospital in Cannock was one of those affected by the scandal (second behind Stafford itself, if memory serves). Since then, MSNHST has been abolished, divided between Wolverhampton and Stoke. This has been received like a heap of sick in Stafford itself, where the hospital has been massively downgraded so they have to go to Stoke for services. However, so far as I can judge people in Cannock are not too unhappy apart from some reflexive reactionaries. Wolverhampton is about the same distance away as Stafford was, and is a much better hospital.
So I am astonished that the Labour candidate has decided to campaign on the NHS. I received a leaflet (one of two I have had from him) which assures me 'only Labour can be trusted with the NHS' and all the usual cattle excrement about millions of extra nurses and how Tories intend to make the NHS an organisation for eating babies. This in a place where a large number of people actually died needlessly because of Labour's mishandling of the NHS. It was, moreover, a generic national leaflet (although locally delivered) and therefore came across as crass, arrogant and completely insensitive to local concerns. It was kind of the equivalent of the BNP campaigning on its record of promoting racial harmony.
If Janos Toth comes to his senses and campaigns on jobs, benefits and the economy, he will win with no trouble. If he plugs the NHS, which is all he seems to be doing at the moment, he will almost certainly lose what I thought less than three weeks ago was an unloseable election.
Huhne's point abou the unattractivness of a minority government makes total sense but I think the upshot is that if the numbers aren't there for a coalition, the main parties will both decline to govern in the first place and call a second election right away.
One way out of this would be for a Grand Coalition to be formed with a limited agreed programme to: a) Introduce a few populist and non contentious bills b) Agree to repeal the FTP act and call a new election exactly one year later.
Sticking point would be how PM and Ministers were chosen, but that could be sorted out and it would only be for one year anyway.
Whatever the content a grand coalition would likely tank both parties' short-term popularity and boost UKIP and the Greens to actual seat-winning levels. It would be a bit pointless to take that hit then only govern for a year.
If we had Spain's unemployment, and especially youth unemployment I suspect the kippers would be doing rather better...
That's not down to luck...
No its down to Gordon Brown not letting Bliar take us into the Euro.
I suspect if the tories had won in 1997 the idiots Major and Heseltine, egged on by a new generation like Call Me Dave would have taken us in and ruined us as thoroughly as Greece.
Yes nothing enacted since 2010 has had any effect....
Indeed, National Debt doubled and still rising at 90 billion a year. Inevitable collapse nailed on sometime over the next 5 years whoever wins when there is no more road to kick the can along.
With debt that high it show ps how crazy Ukip are to want to reinstate the spare room subsidy.
If we had Spain's unemployment, and especially youth unemployment I suspect the kippers would be doing rather better...
That's not down to luck...
No its down to Gordon Brown not letting Bliar take us into the Euro.
I suspect if the tories had won in 1997 the idiots Major and Heseltine, egged on by a new generation like Call Me Dave would have taken us in and ruined us as thoroughly as Greece.
Yes nothing enacted since 2010 has had any effect....
Indeed, National Debt doubled and still rising at 90 billion a year. Inevitable collapse nailed on sometime over the next 5 years whoever wins when there is no more road to kick the can along.
I think you are wrong - unless you let Labour or Labour/SNP back in charge - one of the probable consequences of voting UKIP.
If, in the unlikely event both the greens and UKIP overperform (IMO, a related contingency) - and there's a severely hung parliament as a result, there could be broad public support for changing the voting system to STV.
Huhne's point abou the unattractivness of a minority government makes total sense but I think the upshot is that if the numbers aren't there for a coalition, the main parties will both decline to govern in the first place and call a second election right away.
One way out of this would be for a Grand Coalition to be formed with a limited agreed programme to: a) Introduce a few populist and non contentious bills b) Agree to repeal the FTP act and call a new election exactly one year later.
Sticking point would be how PM and Ministers were chosen, but that could be sorted out and it would only be for one year anyway.
Whatever the content a grand coalition would likely tank both parties' short-term popularity and boost UKIP and the Greens to actual seat-winning levels. It would be a bit pointless to take that hit then only govern for a year.
Yes, but if it's the full five years, then the who gets PM would be much more difficult to decide. Unless one party leads the other significantly.
On my first visit to Wimbledon in 2003 I saw Serena Williams playing a third round match against an unknown 16 year-old by the name of Sharapova. Williams won easily.
Homosexuality obviously shouldn't be a crime, but I'm not sure we should retrospectively impose modern morality and laws upon the past, unless there's a definitive cut-off point. Will Brutus be pardoned for murder as he sought to preserve the Republic?
Energy would be better spent combating homophobia in the modern world.
Thanks, most interesting. The Tories have of course selected a new candidate in the shape of Amanda Milling to replace the controversial Aidan Burley who's retiring at the age of 35.
I think you mean, 'who has been sacked for being a cretin.' In all fairness, he doesn't seem to be a bad constituency MP, but he's severely lacking in judgement.
As I understand it, neither Toth nor Milling are local in the strict sense of the word - Toth is a councillor, but came from outside the area, while Milling is locally-born (well, Burton) but now lives away. So this will probably be fought on the issues rather than personalities, which makes Toth's appalling misjudgement all the more baffling.
Labour's game to rig the electorate starting to coming to fruition:
The 2015 election will be first in which seats are decided by foreign voters, a new study has found found.
In two seats, East Ham and Brent North, the majority of voters were born overseas, while across the country almost 4 million voters – about one in 10 of the entire electorate in England and Wales – were born abroad.
If we had Spain's unemployment, and especially youth unemployment I suspect the kippers would be doing rather better...
That's not down to luck...
No its down to Gordon Brown not letting Bliar take us into the Euro.
I suspect if the tories had won in 1997 the idiots Major and Heseltine, egged on by a new generation like Call Me Dave would have taken us in and ruined us as thoroughly as Greece.
Yes nothing enacted since 2010 has had any effect....
Indeed, National Debt doubled and still rising at 90 billion a year. Inevitable collapse nailed on sometime over the next 5 years whoever wins when there is no more road to kick the can along.
I think you are wrong - unless you let Labour or Labour/SNP back in charge - one of the probable consequences of voting UKIP.
Same Jonahs were wailing that 2010 was a good election to lose. Hasn't done Labour any favours.
Huhne's point abou the unattractivness of a minority government makes total sense but I think the upshot is that if the numbers aren't there for a coalition, the main parties will both decline to govern in the first place and call a second election right away.
One way out of this would be for a Grand Coalition to be formed with a limited agreed programme to: a) Introduce a few populist and non contentious bills b) Agree to repeal the FTP act and call a new election exactly one year later.
Sticking point would be how PM and Ministers were chosen, but that could be sorted out and it would only be for one year anyway.
Whatever the content a grand coalition would likely tank both parties' short-term popularity and boost UKIP and the Greens to actual seat-winning levels. It would be a bit pointless to take that hit then only govern for a year.
Yes, but if it's the full five years, then the who gets PM would be much more difficult to decide. Unless one party leads the other significantly.
Conventionally, the one with most seats. The other party gets more other top jobs to compensate.
But in any case you have the same problem with a one year deal.
If you want a bipartisan "Pass X, Y and Z to screw the small parties" deal then you probably do it in a month or two under a minority government, presumably led by the sitting PM.
You can see the Conservatives have the bit between their teeth today, they even seem to feel then need to beat other Conservatives over the head with their blue rosettes, takes all sorts I suppose, but I am not sure how much it achieves.
Homosexuality obviously shouldn't be a crime, but I'm not sure we should retrospectively impose modern morality and laws upon the past, unless there's a definitive cut-off point. Will Brutus be pardoned for murder as he sought to preserve the Republic?
Energy would be better spent combating homophobia in the modern world.
Quite - I can't imagine what the over-hyped Cumberbatch calls homosexuals given his recent gaffe about 'coloureds.
Homosexuality obviously shouldn't be a crime, but I'm not sure we should retrospectively impose modern morality and laws upon the past, unless there's a definitive cut-off point. Will Brutus be pardoned for murder as he sought to preserve the Republic?
Energy would be better spent combating homophobia in the modern world.
Quite - I can't imagine what the over-hyped Cumberbatch calls homosexuals given his recent gaffe about 'coloureds.
The cynical might suggest that the call for the former was to regain the brownie points lost on Twitter for the later... You might well think that, I couldn't possibly comment.
Homosexuality obviously shouldn't be a crime, but I'm not sure we should retrospectively impose modern morality and laws upon the past, unless there's a definitive cut-off point. Will Brutus be pardoned for murder as he sought to preserve the Republic?
Energy would be better spent combating homophobia in the modern world.
Quite - I can't imagine what the over-hyped Cumberbatch calls homosexuals given his recent gaffe about 'coloureds.
According to the law, pardons should not be issued unless (1) there is clear evidence of a breach of process that materially affected the outcome of the case or (2) there is clear evidence of innocence. In the case of Turing, he actually pleaded guilty, so on what basis the pardon was issued I have no idea! The WW1 executions may just about come under abuse of due process, but that could only have been determined on a case by case basis so the blanket pardoning of them all was simply wrong (and seems to have been based on the false notion that they were all shot for cowardice, which actually most of them weren't).
This silly modern habit of granting pardons for things we no longer disapprove of merely makes people look ridiculous. It's every bit as bad as the Victorians making retrospective moral judgements on the sex lives of Henry VIII and Nelson, and a great deal more pompous.
Mr. Doethur, your Victorian comment reminds me of what Ian Mortimer wrote in The Perfect King, namely that the Victorians disliked Edward III, considering him a war-monger (due to imposing their own perspective on the 14th century) and that's why, after centuries of being considered one of our finest monarchs, he and his achievements are less well-known than they ought to be.
Reminds me also of the idiotic efforts of some to replace BC/AD with BCE/CE (Common Era). Damned fools.
the Victorians disliked Edward III, considering him a war-monger (due to imposing their own perspective on the 14th century) and that's why, after centuries of being considered one of our finest monarchs, he and his achievements are less well-known than they ought to be.
I've never come across that one. I'm just savouring the irony of the Victorians, who fought more imperial wars than any other, possibly than every other, criticising somebody else for being a war monger!
Homosexuality obviously shouldn't be a crime, but I'm not sure we should retrospectively impose modern morality and laws upon the past, unless there's a definitive cut-off point. Will Brutus be pardoned for murder as he sought to preserve the Republic?
Energy would be better spent combating homophobia in the modern world.
I think the issue is there are old gay/bi men alive today who hold convictions for stuff we now consider totally fine. It's the sort of thing that gets dragged up on a CRB check when they apply to be treasurer of their local bridge club, or when their church choir goes to sing in schools or whatever.
It's a source of profound shame for some of these men - and the fear of having to disclose & explain their convictions for *sex crimes* keeps them excluded from society and in fear of being *found out*
Of course, it all gets a bit complicated, for some of these crimes there probably was a degree of indecency by todays standards, and while the vast majority of homosexual encounters/relationships were consensual, some undoubtedly were not. In the past it was all *perversion* and *gross indecency* and anything homosexual was convicted (with gusto) under the same laws.
Personally, I'd be in favour of wiping every conviction for sex crimes/gross indecency over 20 years old, so long as there's nothing within the last 20 years to suggest the person is currently a threat to others. The Home secretary (or a senior judge) can draw up a list of those that, by todays standards should have their convictions upheld, with the rest wiped off the record.
If we had Spain's unemployment, and especially youth unemployment I suspect the kippers would be doing rather better...
That's not down to luck...
No its down to Gordon Brown not letting Bliar take us into the Euro.
I suspect if the tories had won in 1997 the idiots Major and Heseltine, egged on by a new generation like Call Me Dave would have taken us in and ruined us as thoroughly as Greece.
Yes nothing enacted since 2010 has had any effect....
Indeed, National Debt doubled and still rising at 90 billion a year. Inevitable collapse nailed on sometime over the next 5 years whoever wins when there is no more road to kick the can along.
With debt that high it show ps how crazy Ukip are to want to reinstate the spare room subsidy.
Far better to tax Tories spare rooms, no more need to borrow after that. Would be a thousand times more money come in compared to taxing poor people who have one room.
Personally, I'd be in favour of wiping every conviction for sex crimes/gross indecency over 20 years old, so long as there's nothing within the last 20 years to suggest the person is currently a threat to others. The Home secretary can draw up a list of those who she thinks should have their convictions upheld, with the rest wiped off the record.
That seems a more sensible way forward. But surely that's already the case unless it was a sex offence against a child? Bearing in mind that the law was repealed 47 years ago, and therefore most of the survivors would have been minors at the time and therefore considered the victim for a CRB purpose? If you have first hand knowledge to the contrary, I'll accept your information.
The key difficulty with the idea of blanket pardons is that once you start rewriting the law retrospectively in this way, where do you stop, and why would you stop?
Homosexuality obviously shouldn't be a crime, but I'm not sure we should retrospectively impose modern morality and laws upon the past, unless there's a definitive cut-off point. Will Brutus be pardoned for murder as he sought to preserve the Republic?
Energy would be better spent combating homophobia in the modern world.
Do we have so little energy not to act on both enterprises ?
Mr. Doethur, Edward III did invade France every other Tuesday, to be fair.
However, that meant The Hundred Years' War was fought there, rather than here, which was a very good thing for England.
And how often did the Victorians invade random African and Asian countries? At least Edward stuck to France - and at least he had a reasonable if not legally tenable claim to the French throne. The British Empire, on the other hand...
With 7.5% counted in Queensland Labor is on 37 seats to the Liberals 34
Votewise the LNP are on 39.5% on first preferences (down 9.9% on 2012), Labor on 37.3% (up 10.5%), the Greens on 8.1% (up 0.7%), and Palmer United on 5.6% (up 5.7%) http://www.abc.net.au/news/
Is Aidan Burley actually guilty of any more than hi-jinks on a stag night ?
Yes. Being an idiot. The one absolutely unforgivable sin in today's political climate...
(Incidentally, I think that dressing somebody up in a Nazi uniform is a bit more serious than 'hi-jinks'. I take that view over Prince Harry and Ed Balls as well. In Burley's case there was even less excuse, as with Harry's recent example, he must have been aware of how it would have been perceived had it ever come out. And unless he is actually stupid - which I don't think he is - he must have known somebody would snap it and put it on the net. This is why it is now drummed into all schoolchildren - never take a photo you wouldn't be happy to see at an interview for your dream job.)
With 7.5% counted in Queensland Labor is on 37 seats to the Liberals 34
Votewise the LNP are on 39.5% on first preferences (down 9.9% on 2012), Labor on 37.3% (up 10.5%), the Greens on 8.1% (up 0.7%), and Palmer United on 5.6% (up 5.7%) http://www.abc.net.au/news/
Is Aidan Burley actually guilty of any more than hi-jinks on a stag night ?
Yes. Being an idiot. The one absolutely unforgivable sin in today's political climate...
(Incidentally, I think that dressing somebody up in a Nazi uniform is a bit more serious than 'hi-jinks'. I take that view over Prince Harry and Ed Balls as well. In Burley's case there was even less excuse, as with Harry's recent example, he must have been aware of how it would have been perceived had it ever come out. And unless he is actually stupid - which I don't think he is - he must have known somebody would snap it and put it on the net. This is why it is now drummed into all schoolchildren - never take a photo you wouldn't be happy to see at an interview for your dream job.)
Thanks, I'll take that as a 'no' then.
Edit: Of course he was guilty of the offence under French law, and when in Rome... - but that is the end of it to my mind.
Mr. W, I'd suggest combating homophobia in the world today properly requires more than a little energy.
I don't disagree however we should not allow the scale of world wide homophobia and its often deadly consequences to deflect us from righting a wrong within the UK.
There are many men and some women alive and relatives of deceased gay individuals who carry the burden of a conviction for a homosexual act that most today would consider egregious and preposterous in the modern age. Should we not act because greater energy will be required in less enlightened parts of the world?
The Victorians went abroad and conquered/held the Empire. Imperialism, obviously. And they were so sure their values were the correct ones they imposed them on other countries - repression. How dare those women walk round without a bra?
In the same way, we believe our values of equality for women, to stamping out homophobia and racism must be correct. Russia doesn't like gays - we demand a boycott for the Olympics. Afghan girls can't go to school - our troops will protect them.
The point I'm making is that we know we're right to spread our morality because it's the right one. Do you not think that the Victorians were moved by the same thoughts?
In a hundred years time, we might be accused by our successors of being like the Victorians.
Ah, but we're progressive (on our own definition) so that's all right.
With 7.5% counted in Queensland Labor is on 37 seats to the Liberals 34
Votewise the LNP are on 39.5% on first preferences (down 9.9% on 2012), Labor on 37.3% (up 10.5%), the Greens on 8.1% (up 0.7%), and Palmer United on 5.6% (up 5.7%) http://www.abc.net.au/news/
Labor up 10.5 (now 11), not down 10.5, surely?
Palmer United ?!??!
Bloody hell Nick, canvassing and securing votes in Queensland is a bit strong in an effort to secure Broxtowe !!
The Victorians went abroad and conquered/held the Empire. Imperialism, obviously. And they were so sure their values were the correct ones they imposed them on other countries - repression. How dare those women walk round without a bra?
In the same way, we believe our values of equality for women, to stamping out homophobia and racism must be correct. Russia doesn't like gays - we demand a boycott for the Olympics. Afghan girls can't go to school - our troops will protect them.
The point I'm making is that we know we're right to spread our morality because it's the right one. Do you not think that the Victorians were moved by the same thoughts?
In a hundred years time, we might be accused by our successors of being like the Victorians.
Ah, but we're progressive (on our own definition) so that's all right.
Which is exactly my point. We don't seem to have moved far in 114 years, and it bugs me.
Betting question - back in 2012 I took £20 on "other" for formation of the UK Government with WIlliam Hills, but I didn't make a note of the 'other' options at the time, and they've changed - so not sure exactly what "other" means...
The key difficulty with the idea of blanket pardons is that once you start rewriting the law retrospectively in this way, where do you stop, and why would you stop?
You stop at so-called "crimes" that have been legalised and neither are illegal today nor should be.
And you stop there because the inverse, to retrospectively punish someone for something that was OK when they did it is wrong, but you can remove the punishment they're still facing today (the burden of being a convict) for something that isn't a crime today.
It's every bit as bad as the Victorians making retrospective moral judgements on the sex lives of Henry VIII and Nelson, and a great deal more pompous.
What's your view of people going on about the reported sex life of Mohammed?
It's every bit as bad as the Victorians making retrospective moral judgements on the sex lives of Henry VIII and Nelson, and a great deal more pompous.
What's your view of people going on about the reported sex life of Mohammed?
It's every bit as bad as the Victorians making retrospective moral judgements on the sex lives of Henry VIII and Nelson, and a great deal more pompous.
What's your view of people going on about the reported sex life of Mohammed?
It's every bit as bad as the Victorians making retrospective moral judgements on the sex lives of Henry VIII and Nelson, and a great deal more pompous.
What's your view of people going on about the reported sex life of Mohammed?
To be quite frank, I find it a rather baffling irrelevance, likewise with the even weirder things that are sometimes written about the sex life of Jesus. When it comes to the sex lives of some of his modern followers, that's a bit different. But hey, what do I know?
Anyway, with 33% now in the updated result is Labor 40, Liberal 36. It looks like one of the most dramatic electoral reversals of modern times, in 2012 the Liberal Coalition won 78 seats and Labor just 7
Votewise the Liberals are on 39.6% (down 10.1%), the ALP on 39.1% (up 12.4%), the Greens on 8.7% (up 1.2%) and the Palmers on 4.8% (up 4.8%) http://www.abc.net.au/news/
The key difficulty with the idea of blanket pardons is that once you start rewriting the law retrospectively in this way, where do you stop, and why would you stop?
You stop at so-called "crimes" that have been legalised and neither are illegal today nor should be.
And you stop there because the inverse, to retrospectively punish someone for something that was OK when they did it is wrong, but you can remove the punishment they're still facing today (the burden of being a convict) for something that isn't a crime today.
Unless I am much wide of the mark, all offences under the Sexual Offences Act are spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 unless there was sexual activity involving a minor, which comes under a separate piece of legislation.
So a pardon seems to me to be a way of imposing our values retrospectively on earlier ages, which as I have noted several times is something I am opposed to. Whether we disagree with the views of those earlier ages or not is irrelevant.
Moreover, has it occurred to you that such actions run the risk of implicitly criminalising the people who enforced the law? (Edited to make it clear whose views I was referring to)
Nick, just to be sure - I assume the Conservatives (And not UKIP) are the main challengers still according to their info... ?
Oh yes. UKIP round here is high-profile but not very organised.
If you want an exotic bet, there's also the Justice for Men and Boys Party, which I believe is standing in both seats. Their chances are about as good as my being elected in Queensland.
Homosexuality obviously shouldn't be a crime, but I'm not sure we should retrospectively impose modern morality and laws upon the past, unless there's a definitive cut-off point. Will Brutus be pardoned for murder as he sought to preserve the Republic?
Energy would be better spent combating homophobia in the modern world.
Quite - I can't imagine what the over-hyped Cumberbatch calls homosexuals given his recent gaffe about 'coloureds.
According to the law, pardons should not be issued unless (1) there is clear evidence of a breach of process that materially affected the outcome of the case or (2) there is clear evidence of innocence. In the case of Turing, he actually pleaded guilty, so on what basis the pardon was issued I have no idea! The WW1 executions may just about come under abuse of due process, but that could only have been determined on a case by case basis so the blanket pardoning of them all was simply wrong (and seems to have been based on the false notion that they were all shot for cowardice, which actually most of them weren't).
This silly modern habit of granting pardons for things we no longer disapprove of merely makes people look ridiculous. It's every bit as bad as the Victorians making retrospective moral judgements on the sex lives of Henry VIII and Nelson, and a great deal more pompous.
It's as silly as the habit of issuing apologies for the things that were done in bygone ages.
The criminal law changes all the time. Should everyone be given a pardon for being convicted of something that's no longer an offence?
It's every bit as bad as the Victorians making retrospective moral judgements on the sex lives of Henry VIII and Nelson, and a great deal more pompous.
What's your view of people going on about the reported sex life of Mohammed?
I'll add £20 of it at that price - they only need to hold Sherwood according to the seat calcs !
FWIW my understanding is that Labour is very confident in Sherwood (which is virtually next door to my patch so we share a lot of information).
Cheers Nick, have done a bit of book balancing on Sherwood off the back of that
I wonder what that is based on. My seat has a serious amount of canvass information so although we can estimate our vote, it's a struggle to know how the Labour vote compares.
I still believe Sherwood is trending against Labour like many East Mids seats are and the Conservatives would not need a 11% lead in England to retain the seat.
Homosexuality obviously shouldn't be a crime, but I'm not sure we should retrospectively impose modern morality and laws upon the past, unless there's a definitive cut-off point. Will Brutus be pardoned for murder as he sought to preserve the Republic?
Energy would be better spent combating homophobia in the modern world.
I think the issue is there are old gay/bi men alive today who hold convictions for stuff we now consider totally fine. It's the sort of thing that gets dragged up on a CRB check when they apply to be treasurer of their local bridge club, or when their church choir goes to sing in schools or whatever.
It's a source of profound shame for some of these men - and the fear of having to disclose & explain their convictions for *sex crimes* keeps them excluded from society and in fear of being *found out*
Of course, it all gets a bit complicated, for some of these crimes there probably was a degree of indecency by todays standards, and while the vast majority of homosexual encounters/relationships were consensual, some undoubtedly were not. In the past it was all *perversion* and *gross indecency* and anything homosexual was convicted (with gusto) under the same laws.
Personally, I'd be in favour of wiping every conviction for sex crimes/gross indecency over 20 years old, so long as there's nothing within the last 20 years to suggest the person is currently a threat to others. The Home secretary (or a senior judge) can draw up a list of those that, by todays standards should have their convictions upheld, with the rest wiped off the record.
It's why demands for a posthumous pardon for Oscar Wilde are misguided. He would still have gone to jail today, even though the offence for which he was charged (gross indecency) no longer exists.
The Victorians went abroad and conquered/held the Empire. Imperialism, obviously. And they were so sure their values were the correct ones they imposed them on other countries - repression. How dare those women walk round without a bra?.... The point I'm making is that we know we're right to spread our morality because it's the right one. Do you not think that the Victorians were moved by the same thoughts? In a hundred years time, we might be accused by our successors of being like the Victorians. Ah, but we're progressive (on our own definition) so that's all right.
Ah the maligned Victorians. Under the Victorians we passed in 1833 the Slavery Abolition Act. It abolished slavery in the British Empire on 1 August 1834. That was a voluntary act made by the most powerful state in the world at that time. What a great principle of human rights we demonstrated to the rest of the world that was. (In 1807 we had also abolished the slave trade within the Empire).
The Victorians went abroad and conquered/held the Empire. Imperialism, obviously. And they were so sure their values were the correct ones they imposed them on other countries - repression. How dare those women walk round without a bra?.... The point I'm making is that we know we're right to spread our morality because it's the right one. Do you not think that the Victorians were moved by the same thoughts? In a hundred years time, we might be accused by our successors of being like the Victorians. Ah, but we're progressive (on our own definition) so that's all right.
Ah the maligned Victorians. Under the Victorians we passed in 1833 the Slavery Abolition Act. It abolished slavery in the British Empire on 1 August 1834. That was a voluntary act made by the most powerful state in the world at that time. What a great principle of human rights we demonstrated to the rest of the world that was. (In 1807 we had also abolished the slave trade within the Empire).
Oh dear, TC Political Betting.
That was a Wilhelmine act...the Victorians came in 1837.
Thanks, but I go with OGH (for once) on this one and believe that Conservatives are more likely to be optimistic on their chances and back them with money than Labour do.
The Victorians went abroad and conquered/held the Empire. Imperialism, obviously. And they were so sure their values were the correct ones they imposed them on other countries - repression. How dare those women walk round without a bra?.... The point I'm making is that we know we're right to spread our morality because it's the right one. Do you not think that the Victorians were moved by the same thoughts? In a hundred years time, we might be accused by our successors of being like the Victorians. Ah, but we're progressive (on our own definition) so that's all right.
Ah the maligned Victorians. Under the Victorians we passed in 1833 the Slavery Abolition Act. It abolished slavery in the British Empire on 1 August 1834. That was a voluntary act made by the most powerful state in the world at that time. What a great principle of human rights we demonstrated to the rest of the world that was. (In 1807 we had also abolished the slave trade within the Empire).
In many ways, Victorian civilisation was pretty impressive, despite the fact they did things that would be considered wrong today. And, in 100 years time, a fair-minded historian would surely say the same about us.
Labour's game to rig the electorate starting to coming to fruition: The 2015 election will be first in which seats are decided by foreign voters, a new study has found found. In two seats, East Ham and Brent North, the majority of voters were born overseas, while across the country almost 4 million voters – about one in 10 of the entire electorate in England and Wales – were born abroad.
Which is why an EdMiliband govt is so dangerous for Conservatives and UKIP. 5 more years of socialists gerrymandering these things could set us all back 20 to 30 years.
The Victorians went abroad and conquered/held the Empire. Imperialism, obviously. And they were so sure their values were the correct ones they imposed them on other countries - repression. How dare those women walk round without a bra?
In the same way, we believe our values of equality for women, to stamping out homophobia and racism must be correct. Russia doesn't like gays - we demand a boycott for the Olympics. Afghan girls can't go to school - our troops will protect them.
The point I'm making is that we know we're right to spread our morality because it's the right one. Do you not think that the Victorians were moved by the same thoughts?
In a hundred years time, we might be accused by our successors of being like the Victorians.
Ah, but we're progressive (on our own definition) so that's all right.
Your point is a fair one to make - but the Victorians effectively inherited an empire. The US colonies were actually lost before the Victorian age. So I am not sure the comparison should centre on the Victorians. Having said that the Victorians started moves to self administration and government for India. We can see the Victorian moves to abolish the world slave trade in the same context as their attempts at some sort of wise administration of their colonies. Against this, the Afghanistan operation was UN led not analogous to an imperial one. It was not I think attempting to spread morality but justice based on international law as determined by the UN.
We are already some way past the 50% of providers in deficit tipping point which has never previously been breached and was the definition of an NHS financial crisis by most.
Now the news from NHS England and Monitor is that 2015/16 Tariff withdrawn a few weeks from the start of a new financial year, putting NHS financial plans into chaos.
Complete shambles. Its planning season how the fook you supposed to plan when the 85% of your income covered by Tariff is now complete guesswork.
Awaits abuse from those defenders of the Tories tenure of the NHS
If we had Spain's unemployment, and especially youth unemployment I suspect the kippers would be doing rather better...
That's not down to luck...
No its down to Gordon Brown not letting Bliar take us into the Euro.
I suspect if the tories had won in 1997 the idiots Major and Heseltine, egged on by a new generation like Call Me Dave would have taken us in and ruined us as thoroughly as Greece.
Yes nothing enacted since 2010 has had any effect....
Indeed, National Debt doubled and still rising at 90 billion a year. Inevitable collapse nailed on sometime over the next 5 years whoever wins when there is no more road to kick the can along.
With debt that high it show ps how crazy Ukip are to want to reinstate the spare room subsidy.
Far better to tax Tories spare rooms, no more need to borrow after that. Would be a thousand times more money come in compared to taxing poor people who have one room.
'spare rooms' are already taxed via council tax and inheritance tax. Your allusion and analogy to welfare reform misrepresents the facts. There is no 'spare room tax' just an attempt to give welfare in proportion to the need for it. That welfare comes mainly from taxes of those who not much better off than the recipients. Your comments illustrate what a regressive and bigoted left wing movement the SNP have turned into.
Seems NHS hospitals in England have taken the unprecedented step of rejecting the proposed national payment tariff for 2015-16 after concluding that they could “no longer guarantee sustainable and safe care” under the financial terms being offered.
It's a serious long-term problem due to the deficit and the demographic changes. There's no easy answer.
Lansley reforms have completely loaded the dice against Acute Care.
When Primary Care Doctors are given all the money and told to distribute it in either primary or Acute Care. The current crisis was inevitable as well as creating a complete conflict of interest.
Incidentally Circle reached the exact same conclusion.
A 30% tariff for emergency care is killing every Acute Hospital.
No market in the world would allow this except the NHS internal one.
Integration not fragmentation is the only solution. Abolish all small commissioners that were created under the reforms would save Billions for a start
Comments
I'll explain. Cannock and Rugeley are a mix of poverty and lower-middle-class white/blue collar workers, with some pockets of wealth on the Chase itself. Most people work for private companies, eg CAT, Amazon, and have not done too well in the slump. This was one reason why it went blue last time. Things have not improved markedly and, disillusioned, this vote has swung directly back to Labour (not to UKIP, as some posters here think, although that has siphoned off a little of the Old Tory vote and may see them come a fairly distant third).
However, the second, big reason why Cannock rejected Labour is because it used to be part of the old Mid-Staffordshire NHS trust - indeed, Chase Hospital in Cannock was one of those affected by the scandal (second behind Stafford itself, if memory serves). Since then, MSNHST has been abolished, divided between Wolverhampton and Stoke. This has been received like a heap of sick in Stafford itself, where the hospital has been massively downgraded so they have to go to Stoke for services. However, so far as I can judge people in Cannock are not too unhappy apart from some reflexive reactionaries. Wolverhampton is about the same distance away as Stafford was, and is a much better hospital.
So I am astonished that the Labour candidate has decided to campaign on the NHS. I received a leaflet (one of two I have had from him) which assures me 'only Labour can be trusted with the NHS' and all the usual cattle excrement about millions of extra nurses and how Tories intend to make the NHS an organisation for eating babies. This in a place where a large number of people actually died needlessly because of Labour's mishandling of the NHS. It was, moreover, a generic national leaflet (although locally delivered) and therefore came across as crass, arrogant and completely insensitive to local concerns. It was kind of the equivalent of the BNP campaigning on its record of promoting racial harmony.
If Janos Toth comes to his senses and campaigns on jobs, benefits and the economy, he will win with no trouble. If he plugs the NHS, which is all he seems to be doing at the moment, he will almost certainly lose what I thought less than three weeks ago was an unloseable election.
I suspect if the tories had won in 1997 the idiots Major and Heseltine, egged on by a new generation like Call Me Dave would have taken us in and ruined us as thoroughly as Greece.
Sharapova Vs Serena Williams in the Australian Open final. Sharapova hasn't beat her for ages (since the Wimbledon title, I think).
More importantly, F1 testing starts tomorrow. Nyoooooooom!
Meanwhile ....
Michael Portillo Will Never Prime Minister Of Spain
I could be wrong (and if I am doubtless somebody will point me to the relevant clause) but in any case it's hard to see how under such circumstances there could not be an election. (Incidentally, surely the Mutiny Act was replaced by the Defence of the Realm and Emergency Powers Acts in the years 1915-21? I don't think that's one that still needs passing annually.)
This does of course leave a government a loophole if it wants/needs an early election of voting down its own budget. Why it would want to I have no idea, and I can't imagine a worse way of starting an election campaign. But if there were a properly hung parliament and no Grand Coalition, it's easy to see George Osborne bringing forward a budget to trigger an election.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31070115
Hmm.
Homosexuality obviously shouldn't be a crime, but I'm not sure we should retrospectively impose modern morality and laws upon the past, unless there's a definitive cut-off point. Will Brutus be pardoned for murder as he sought to preserve the Republic?
Energy would be better spent combating homophobia in the modern world.
As I understand it, neither Toth nor Milling are local in the strict sense of the word - Toth is a councillor, but came from outside the area, while Milling is locally-born (well, Burton) but now lives away. So this will probably be fought on the issues rather than personalities, which makes Toth's appalling misjudgement all the more baffling.
We could keep FPTP, but every 4th election could be a once-every-generation STV vote.
Y'know, something completely different to shake up the establishment.
But in any case you have the same problem with a one year deal.
If you want a bipartisan "Pass X, Y and Z to screw the small parties" deal then you probably do it in a month or two under a minority government, presumably led by the sitting PM.
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/review-caesars-war-commentaries-by.html
Old(ish) translation but the quirks are mostly to my liking.
This silly modern habit of granting pardons for things we no longer disapprove of merely makes people look ridiculous. It's every bit as bad as the Victorians making retrospective moral judgements on the sex lives of Henry VIII and Nelson, and a great deal more pompous.
Reminds me also of the idiotic efforts of some to replace BC/AD with BCE/CE (Common Era). Damned fools.
It's a source of profound shame for some of these men - and the fear of having to disclose & explain their convictions for *sex crimes* keeps them excluded from society and in fear of being *found out*
Of course, it all gets a bit complicated, for some of these crimes there probably was a degree of indecency by todays standards, and while the vast majority of homosexual encounters/relationships were consensual, some undoubtedly were not. In the past it was all *perversion* and *gross indecency* and anything homosexual was convicted (with gusto) under the same laws.
Personally, I'd be in favour of wiping every conviction for sex crimes/gross indecency over 20 years old, so long as there's nothing within the last 20 years to suggest the person is currently a threat to others. The Home secretary (or a senior judge) can draw up a list of those that, by todays standards should have their convictions upheld, with the rest wiped off the record.
Mr. Doethur, Edward III did invade France every other Tuesday, to be fair.
However, that meant The Hundred Years' War was fought there, rather than here, which was a very good thing for England.
The key difficulty with the idea of blanket pardons is that once you start rewriting the law retrospectively in this way, where do you stop, and why would you stop?
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-state-election-2015/queensland-election-2015-early-exit-poll-figures-predict-labor-win-20150131-132tuv.html
Mr. W, I'd suggest combating homophobia in the world today properly requires more than a little energy.
Mr. Pong, fair enough, we all phrase things poorly now and then. Except for me, of course. Me writing bad is unpossible.
Votewise the LNP are on 39.5% on first preferences (down 9.9% on 2012), Labor on 37.3% (up 10.5%), the Greens on 8.1% (up 0.7%), and Palmer United on 5.6% (up 5.7%)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/
(Incidentally, I think that dressing somebody up in a Nazi uniform is a bit more serious than 'hi-jinks'. I take that view over Prince Harry and Ed Balls as well. In Burley's case there was even less excuse, as with Harry's recent example, he must have been aware of how it would have been perceived had it ever come out. And unless he is actually stupid - which I don't think he is - he must have known somebody would snap it and put it on the net. This is why it is now drummed into all schoolchildren - never take a photo you wouldn't be happy to see at an interview for your dream job.)
Edit: Of course he was guilty of the offence under French law, and when in Rome... - but that is the end of it to my mind.
There are many men and some women alive and relatives of deceased gay individuals who carry the burden of a conviction for a homosexual act that most today would consider egregious and preposterous in the modern age. Should we not act because greater energy will be required in less enlightened parts of the world?
In the same way, we believe our values of equality for women, to stamping out homophobia and racism must be correct. Russia doesn't like gays - we demand a boycott for the Olympics. Afghan girls can't go to school - our troops will protect them.
The point I'm making is that we know we're right to spread our morality because it's the right one. Do you not think that the Victorians were moved by the same thoughts?
In a hundred years time, we might be accused by our successors of being like the Victorians.
Ah, but we're progressive (on our own definition) so that's all right.
Bloody hell Nick, canvassing and securing votes in Queensland is a bit strong in an effort to secure Broxtowe !!
And you stop there because the inverse, to retrospectively punish someone for something that was OK when they did it is wrong, but you can remove the punishment they're still facing today (the burden of being a convict) for something that isn't a crime today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_United_Party
You're right.
The Victorians accuse Edward of being a warmonger. We accuse the Victorians of being Imperialist, in wanting to spread their values across the globe.
Hypocrisy, by definition. You could add pride (the cardinal sin in Islam) and just a touch of hubris.
Votewise the Liberals are on 39.6% (down 10.1%), the ALP on 39.1% (up 12.4%), the Greens on 8.7% (up 1.2%) and the Palmers on 4.8% (up 4.8%)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/
So a pardon seems to me to be a way of imposing our values retrospectively on earlier ages, which as I have noted several times is something I am opposed to. Whether we disagree with the views of those earlier ages or not is irrelevant.
Moreover, has it occurred to you that such actions run the risk of implicitly criminalising the people who enforced the law?
(Edited to make it clear whose views I was referring to)
If you want an exotic bet, there's also the Justice for Men and Boys Party, which I believe is standing in both seats. Their chances are about as good as my being elected in Queensland. Ahhhhh (drifts off into fantasyland).
The criminal law changes all the time. Should everyone be given a pardon for being convicted of something that's no longer an offence?
http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/moscow-return-flights-just-38-98-flying-from-manchester-april-2015-38-98-per-person-2132931
Almost worth doing a duty free run.
I still believe Sherwood is trending against Labour like many East Mids seats are and the Conservatives would not need a 11% lead in England to retain the seat.
Under the Victorians we passed in 1833 the Slavery Abolition Act. It abolished slavery in the British Empire on 1 August 1834. That was a voluntary act made by the most powerful state in the world at that time. What a great principle of human rights we demonstrated to the rest of the world that was. (In 1807 we had also abolished the slave trade within the Empire).
That was a Wilhelmine act...the Victorians came in 1837.
Prominent LD thinks coalitions are a good deal
In other news, the arboreal ursine is requesting some more toilet tissue.
Against this, the Afghanistan operation was UN led not analogous to an imperial one. It was not I think attempting to spread morality but justice based on international law as determined by the UN.
We are already some way past the 50% of providers in deficit tipping point which has never previously been breached and was the definition of an NHS financial crisis by most.
Now the news from NHS England and Monitor is that 2015/16 Tariff withdrawn a few weeks from the start of a new financial year, putting NHS financial plans into chaos.
Complete shambles. Its planning season how the fook you supposed to plan when the 85% of your income covered by Tariff is now complete guesswork.
Awaits abuse from those defenders of the Tories tenure of the NHS
Your allusion and analogy to welfare reform misrepresents the facts. There is no 'spare room tax' just an attempt to give welfare in proportion to the need for it. That welfare comes mainly from taxes of those who not much better off than the recipients.
Your comments illustrate what a regressive and bigoted left wing movement the SNP have turned into.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31072321
It's a serious long-term problem due to the deficit and the demographic changes. There's no easy answer.
When Primary Care Doctors are given all the money and told to distribute it in either primary or Acute Care. The current crisis was inevitable as well as creating a complete conflict of interest.
Incidentally Circle reached the exact same conclusion.
A 30% tariff for emergency care is killing every Acute Hospital.
No market in the world would allow this except the NHS internal one.
Integration not fragmentation is the only solution. Abolish all small commissioners that were created under the reforms would save Billions for a start